Or in other words, you're willing to ignore the nuance and details to force a point.
In many cases, I believe issues of nuance are nothing more than rationalizations for enacting an action or justifying a point that one wants to make. It becomes even easier when ones confirmation bias is upheld by like minded individuals. We add complexity as needed to further justify it and to have a better chance of having that action or point upheld by our peers by either doubling down on a specific ideology or progression of thought or expand it to cover as broad of a range varying levels of agreement and support.
Do you think anti-Muslim bigotry in Egypt is as big a problem as anti-Coptic bigotry? Do you think that perhaps the bigotry by the majority might be more consequential
First, I should say that in all honesty I don't really care about what is going on there. As far as being more consequential, yes of course. The more people invested in a particular action or believe the more likelihood of said action or believe being enforced. However, that doesn't change the underlying question of whether racism is wrong or justified in some manner. To my thinking, having been the victim of racism and to then turn around and engage in the same behavior is more reprehensible because you have direct knowledge of what that feels like, how it effects your interaction with the world around you and how it may curtail your ability to live and enjoy the same rights as others.
Someone growing up in a racist society, personally knowing nothing different, has at least a modicum of an excuse for their ignorance. Once shown and offered a viable alternative or having experienced the effects of racism, to willfully perpetrate it ones self or to continue to engage in the behavior is a willful choice that one has been shown is bad or has personal experience as being bad.
A quick question. Do you believe in preemptive violence? By that I mean taking violent action against a perceived potential threat before actually being attacked?
The reason I ask is because with the Antifa movement violent action appears to be taken in order to avert the spread and assumption of power by fascist ideologies. The justification for this is that we have seen the results of just such a spread and power grab. We use Nazi Germany as penultimate example. So, Antifa head off the possibility of any such resurgence by protesting and physical violence were necessary. This is the justification of "a little evil to avert a larger evil." but there is no guarantee of such a resurgence without the violence. Just the potential for fascist violence demands preemptive violence.
Using that same justification we can see the results of Antifa participation in counter-protests or protests and the ensuing violence and destruction that has occurred and infer it is likely to occur again. Given that, why shouldn't "The Right" see preemptive violence as a just course like Antifa? They should just assume Antifa is there to physically harm them and immediately attack them with whatever is easily at hand before they have a chance to prepare.
Building on that, if Antifa shows a predilection for violence and uses continually aggressive speech about physically attacking and or even killing this pocket of fascism, why wouldn't the "The Right" be justified in preemptively pulling firearms and aggressively engaging with them before allowing them the opportunity to physically harm them or potentially kill them if things spiraled out of control?
Yes, I know it's a large step down the rabbit hole but inexcusable actions escalate within any mob mentality, especially when it is not countered by sufficient pressure from saner peers or might in the form of law enforcement, national guard or outright military intervention. The danger of mob action is that is feeds on its own actions to embolden itself in the absence of a countervailing power. It also has the unfortunate tendency to pull bystanders into itself for growth that further empowers it. This continues and the destruction and violence climbs until it's forcibly stopped or eventually burns itself out, as sheer physical exhaustion sets in and the effects of adrenaline wear off. It's only in that relative "calm" as the mob comes down off its high that a real appreciation of what has occurred is seen and the repercussions, if any. are felt.
I am too but at the end of the day freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from private sector consequences.
I'll concede that point.
